Missiles: Do they ever miss???

[capnq]

quote:

---

For example, a missle with range 10 (CSM II, I believe has that range) is launched at a target eight squares away. The target moves three squares away (might work at two as well, never really sat and tested it), and stays there. The missile will appear to go right over the ship, and just disappear, without the explosion, no damage done. Move one more out of range and the missile disappears just before the target.

---

You're right; this is the behavior I was misinterpreting as a miss.


------------------
Cap'n Q

[Suicide Junkie]

When the missile moves into its target which is 1 square out of range, the missile does 0 damage.

This is different from the missile not doing damage.

If you have "partial" damage to your hull, and have shields regenerated, that partial damage will come out of the hull and go into the shields.

[nerfman]

"If you have "partial" damage to your hull, and have shields regenerated, that partial damage will come out of the hull and go into the shields."

Ouch, that is a little buggy, but understandable based on the other threads that address armor and damage in general. I always wondered why individual component damage wasn't tracked. It takes less memory to do it the current way (by assigning a pointer to the Last component damaged and recording the partial damage independent of the actual componenet), but sure does lead to some wierd game effects.

Personally, I think that missiles should have a % to hit (or miss). There should be components that give a negative percetage (like ECM), jammers if you will. The seeker itself would be rated by a percentage that reflects how good a terminal manuever and how hardened vs soft kill (jamming) the seeker is. All these things go into a modern missile engagement and could reasonably be modeled here (if missiles actually had to hit %'s).

As far as it not being "fair" to missile shooters, there are work arounds, namely increased salvo size. Ideally, if two forces were at roughly the same tech then the missiles would have say a 80% (or maybe higher) chance to hit each way. But if one team had much better jamming/ECM, then they would benefit from getting many more soft kills (missiles that miss due to jamming). I find it odd that electronic warfare in this game effects direct fire but not guided munitions when in real life the opposite is generally true. Bullets can't be jammed and ship mounted sensors are more powerful/agile/and backed by more powerful computers. They can be jammed, but jamming a tiny little missile seeker that is very close to you is a lot easier than jamming a whole ships sensor system when it is most likely much farther away.

[Aussie Gamer]

To me if you have ECM pod on board it should effect all attacks to your ship.

It does seem even sillier to have it effect direct fire and not missile weapons, clearly that is not the way it works in real life.

Reading this thread, I am going to be rethinking my armoured missiles as they are now not going to be stopped by point def as easily.

I thought that the ECM would make the difference, a lass not the case.

This is a bug!

[This message has been edited by Aussie Gamer (edited 30 April 2001).]

[Phoenix-D]

If they are working as intended, and I think they are, it's *not* a bug. It's a design decision you disagree with. There is a difference.

Phoenix-D

[dmm]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aussie Gamer:
Reading this thread, I am going to be rethinking my armoured missiles as they are now not going to be stopped by point def as easily.

---

I don't think you can armor missiles either. People were trying it, and thinking that it worked, but it actually wasn't working. At least that's how I remember the discussions. Search for past discussions using the keyword "missile."

Regarding missiles always hitting: that's an old discussion (and a heated one). FWIW, I agree with you. But I don't think MM is going to change it. He's certainly had many opportunities to at least make it moddable, and has chosen not to do it.

[Marty Ward]

Everything should have a chance to miss!


[This message has been edited by Marty Ward (edited 30 April 2001).]

[Suicide Junkie]

Hey, the perfect accuracy is what makes seekers different from other weapons. If they could miss, you'd have just another WMG that can be shot down!

BTW, it was neat in SE3, how seekers would continue beyond their launching range. CSMs would follow you till combat ended , while plasma missiles would slowly decay until thier damage reached zero, then go 'poof'.

[This message has been edited by suicide_junkie (edited 01 May 2001).]

[Aussie Gamer]

Yes you can armour missiles, you have to just make a new component.

I think that all weapons have a chance to miss or what is the point of ECM and combat sensor except for direct fire weapons.
I beleive that this makes missiles completely unrealistic.
It is a "bug" because it is not the way missiles and ECM work in real life.

Missiles have a longer range than direct fire weapons but can be shoot down by point defence. That is the give for the longer range that equals the range out.
Giving them "110%" accuracy is too much!

[This message has been edited by Aussie Gamer (edited 01 May 2001).]

[Phoenix-D]

Bug: element of program that does not work as designed.

This ain't a bug (assuming they aren't supposed to miss).

SE4 isn't a real-life simulation. If it were, why does a missile launcher have unlimited ammo? For that matter, why is a bridge 10 kilotons? That's more than modern *ships*.

Besides, missile tech in SE4 could be substantially different from current missile tech.

Phoenix-D